> 2) For that matter, what combination of events could have provided information that >would lead one to conclude that the PV of future income streams would be 40% lower in >July of last year than it was thought to be in July of 2000? It was a bubble. >Financial markets aren't fully efficient. Live with it.
This is a straw man. I was arguing that the size of the bubble is being over-stated, and the importance of standard unforeseeable random shocks understated. >>>I don't think so. I would argue that you couldn't explain more than a 1 or 2% >change in PV of future earnings as a result of 9/11 related events and that would be >stretching. If that is all you meant you weren't saying very much. - - Bill
